- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Do we need a new version of Godwin's Law?
Too many discussion threads are degenerating or being hijacked into helmet debates rather than what the original article is about. And it's usually instigated be a 'Helmet Evangelist'.
Now, just to be clear, I do not generally wear a cycle helmet - the notable exceptions being when I am taking part in an event where the organisers have made it a prerequisite of participation (racing and sportives). That is my choice just as it is your choice to wear one. If you feel happier, safer, more confident and more likely to cycle then wear one! That is your choice.
But Helmet Evangelists can't leave it there! They have to try and convert you to their way of thinking, their arguments are often ad hominem, they question your intelligence, your rights to be treated for your 'self-inflicted' injuries (even if you didn't suffer a head injury), your sense of social responsibility, etc, etc, etc.
For example: Chris Boardman and Blain Walsh have produced a good video showing how drivers should overtake cyclists. Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with helmets. Seventh comment in - Helmets!!!! Basically [Fire up adenoids] "Chris Boardman can't have anything intelligent to say as he doesn't/isn't wearing a helmet!" FOR F***KS SAKE! THIS IS NOT A HELMET DEBATE!
I would therefore like to propose a new version of Godwin's Law to be triggered at the first mention of helmets in a non-helmet thread.
I would like suggestions for
1) a name for this law, and
2) a recommended punishment for breaking it. eg. Posting privileges suspended for one week.
Discuss.
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- quiff 1 sec ago
I'm hoping I've just missed the joke - you're not really suggesting this was a mistake?...
- quiff 19 min 39 sec ago
That's not how it's commonly understood. Primary is usually used to describe centre of your lane. Secondary is somewhere to the left of there (but...
- check12 33 min 20 sec ago
random use of the word responsibility -Responsibility refers to the duty of having authority or control over something or someone. If you are...
- Eton Rifle 46 min 7 sec ago
Then why do they all own cars, if the infrastructure to use them is not there? ...
- ktache 1 hour 8 min ago
I've been carrying the big heavy butyl for over five years...
- quiff 1 hour 15 min ago
I have a Shazam mini and love wizard works, but it's a bit chicken and egg - the Shazam does look quite a lot like the bags Carradice have been...
- ktache 1 hour 12 min ago
But then why would an otherwise law abiding driver need to react to a speed camera, real or imitation?...
- Simon E 1 hour 19 min ago
I too wondered why Giant want to recruit 4 highly paid with bullshit-speak sales & marketing experience, not real hands-on R&D knowledge ...
- Nobski 2 hours 44 min ago
100% agree, it's nothing to do with them, how public opinion is split.
- hawkinspeter 4 hours 19 min ago
Whilst EV cars are an improvement over ICE cars, I think they're a distraction from the possibilities of e-bikes, e-scooters and e-cargo-bikes etc....
Add new comment
27 comments
the "happyclapper's law"? Which is what I think the hardcore helmet evangelists are like.
I'm also in the could not care of you wear a lid or not camp. I don't & it's not your job to change my mind (I wore one for years then started reading up on them properly).
Ah the 'born-again helemet objectionist'!..
they're the worst kind!
I wonder, why state your views on helmets in this particular thread in the first place, (applies to the OP too), or have a go specifically at one group 'the helmet evangelists' as you call them), if this is unrelated to the thread!!
I shall now invoke the ... helmet law; which the thread broke from the start!!!
Only a Nazi would start a thread like this.
I was looking at the road.cc review of the Sealskinz cycling cap, and thought it was odd that there were like 100 comments. Turned out that the reviewer had said he chose not to wear a helmet, and the comments turned into a helmets/no-helmets battle to the death. F-ing ridiculous!
Actually this topic is all about helmets. That's why it was posted in the first place ! !
LOL. This thread is a covert way for the OP to air his views on helmets, right?!
FWIW I've generally found people who hold strong views on either side of the argument pretty objectionable, and would agree with this law being invoked when people derail a forum topic or comments on a news story with unrelated crap about helmets.
No! No! No! You miss the point. My views are neither pro nor anti-helmet and are therefore irrelevant. My objection is to the way discussion threads get hijacked.
I don't care if you wear a helmet or not - IT IS YOUR CHOICE! If the options are either you wear a helmet and ride or don't ride then I would much rather you wear a helmet and ride. I believe passionately in 'critical mass', so the more people we have out there riding everyday the better, regardless as to whether they are wearing a helmet or not.
Your second point hits the mark. When a discussion thread gets derailed you often wind up with two zealots slagging off each other, going round and round in circles, getting nowhere and churning the ground to shit. No one wins and everyone loses. In the middle of this someone will make a brilliant, insightful and intelligent comment but it is lost in the fog of war.
It is all so f**king depressing and predictable. The thread dies because nobody cares.
Shorter: "I have no idea how helmets work".
Godwin's law (As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1) was originally stated by Mike Godwin.
Convention demands that the new version of the law should be named after whoever creates it. Etiquette demands the creator of the law should not be the one to give it a name.
Levermonkey has not yet stated any new law.
Of course when Godwin's Law is reached then the discussion thread is 'dead' and you are quite right I have not stated a new law as any new law would only be a variation of the original law. So here goes
"As any discussion thread on any subject on any cycling forum increases in length then the tendency for the thread to descend into a meaningless helmet debate increases exponentially. At this point the thread is dead and the poster whose post led to this death is automatically deemed to have lost the argument."
Please note that this cuts BOTH ways and this law would not apply to specifically 'helmet' debates.
As this law is a variation then I think we can set aside the normal naming conventions - for anyone who doesn't know; 'levermonkey' is an insulting name for a plant operator and I'm not sure it would work for the name of a law.
My personal favourite so far is Boardman's Law but Jimbomitch's Cole's Law did cause me to snort tea out of my nose all over my keyboard. Well done that man!
As you've already set the ball rolling. . . . . . . . . I personally don't agree with making helmets compulsory. However having had three helmets written off in the past and never suffered any head injuries or pain whilst wearing a cycling helmet I am convinced that wearing one does reduce the risk of head injuries. It's also true that throughout my 66years of life I have cracked my head on countless occasions when not on my bike and not wearing " protective" head gear and lived to tell the tale. Mind you blood has been spilt and stitches made and " fucking hell that hurts " . Aesthetics are also a personal thing and for me helmets look cool. There again others may not agree, but as helmets are not compulsory this is not a problem .
As you've already set the ball rolling. . . . . . . . . I personally don't agree with making helmets compulsory. However having had three helmets written off in the past and never suffered any head injuries or pain whilst wearing a cycling helmet I am convinced that wearing one does reduce the risk of head injuries. It's also true that throughout my 66years of life I have cracked my head on countless occasions when not on my bike and not wearing " protective" head gear and lived to tell the tale. Mind you blood has been spilt and stitches made and " fucking hell that hurts " . Aesthetics are also a personal thing and for me helmets look cool. There again others may not agree, but as helmets are not compulsory this is not a problem .
Aargh! I invoke Cracknell's Law!!! (Just trying it out
)
I think this expression cracked my head can make a cut to the skin on the top of the head sound much more serious than it really is - although I don't mean to discourage anyone from seeking medical attention. But I'm glad you posted because it's a good reminder that the skull is much tougher than expanded polystyrene. Too many people seem to look at broken helmets and conclude that their skull would have broken if they didn't have the helmet.
Yeah and there are loads of folk that have cracked heads and have never been near a bike or worn a helmet or for that matter banged their head. Strangely I spent half a century working in the building trade but taking comfort to one side, the debate about safety and common sense regarding the wearing of hard hats has never reached the stupid conversations aired by some cyclists!
Cole's Law??? I'll get my coat.
You'd never know it, to read the comments... Anyway, to the point in hand, how about "Cracknell's Law"?
zealots on both side though right? You have some people who try and convince others that helmets offer absolutely no benefit. That is simply not true, but then I am under no illusion that they will save you from being run over by a car.
But I totally get why people discredit them, there are so many more important factors regarding cycle safety that this helmet issue is a distraction with fatal consequences.
I blame Hitler and all those who sail in her.
The Bell End law.
I sometimes read a few lines, but have never posted on a helmet thread. They are dull and no views are changed. As I don't engage in the debate I don't recognise myself on either 'side'.
Creating a thread complaining about the 'other sides' bringing up of the the helmet topic to have a dig at them did make me smile this morning.
For most of this type of argument it is best to try and look in the mirror. Is what I am going to say likely to inflame or distract the debate. Probably best not to post if it is.
Crap threads die when nobody posts. I do wish that is what we all did with the stale topics - like the endless helmets do.
Shit, have a broken my own rule?
Unfortunately it's a perfect example of herd mentality.
If this happens can we have the same for lights in during the day and hi-vis? It is a shame that debates degenerate into post after post of "I do Xxx therefore I'm better than you!" Or "I would dead after a situation yyy if hadn't been for xxxxx!"
Not really. Those are the only ones where people argue back, tbh.
I mean, I've got in an argument about this on - I think - exactly two threads. One of those is the aforementioned Boardman thread.
The other was on helmet laws. So it's hardly a diversion from the topic. And if you click on and read a seventy-comment thread about Aussie helmet laws, you've only yourself to blame for finding it "a helmet bore-off".
the reply is usually bluntly shut up, and deal with the elephant. I want to be able to ride with the GF, she won't ride because she is scared of being hit by a car. Helmet no helmet make FA difference to that belief.
These zealots on one side of this issue are clearly a serious problem. I can't count the number of threads that have degenerated into people all shouting "WEAR HELMETS!!!", and nobody at all replying.
I cant recall a thread that you have posted in that hasn't been a helmet bore off.
Is there a reason why you want to fixate on agitating these rows?
For a name, Boardman's Law??
Only a week? feeling generous,
for the record i usually wear a helmet, habit from years of MTBing i guess, and having crashed many times over the years, Helmets aren't that helpful in the grand scheme of things. People have been falling out of trees for millennia, the human race is still around.